Practically Speaking

How about no coverage! I'd missed this completely.

Whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of your Pro-Bush leanings.

This was not weapons grade uranium.

This material was known to be in Iraq since 1991, a leftover from prior nuclear efforts.  The material was under seal by the IAEA over that time.

This in no way contradicts Joe Wilson's assertion that Iraq had not recently gone to Niger for uranium.  It in now way excuses using discredited intelligence as an excuse to go to war.  It in now way excuses leaking the name of a CIA agent to get even with Joe Wilson.

The reason for no coverage?  Try no story.  See news.yahoo.com/.../iraq_yellowcake_mission

Kyle's reply: Just want to make it perfectly clear, I never said it was weapons grade uranium, nor do the stories state that it was weapons grade uranium, hence the phrases, "seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment" and "stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel."

Just to make it perfectly clear, your title is a lie.

What was shipped to Canada was known from 1991, not weapons grade, and secured.  If Bush had gone to the Congress or UN with concerns about some old yellowcake laying around Iraq, he wouldn't have gotten his war.  This in no way changes the nature of the Bush lies, and it is wrong to suggest that it does.

We need to understand that WMD was, in Paul Wolfowitz's terms, the best rationale to go to war.  In the final analysis, we need to understand that we went to war for two reasons.  1)  Long standing neoconservative doctrine held that democracy could sweep the middle east if we got the dictators out of the way.  In some senses laudable, in other senses, remarkably naive. 2)  We went for oil.  It is important to consider the real reasons for war as we consider the goals to get out.  WMD is a debunked argument, focusing on a false reason for war doesn't inform our decisions on how to get out.  It also represents a pathetic effort to justify 4K American deaths, hundreds of thousands Iraqi deaths, millions of displaced Iraqis, and a trillion dollar war.  Get over it.  Stop trying to justify it.  You can't.  We need to think clearly about what we can make out of this horrible situation.

Kyle's reply: Contrarian, you are omniscient too? You know for a fact that had we not gone to war that Saddam would not have continued in his weapons programs?

I found the AP story and IBD editorial interesting. I was not aware uranium was found when we first went to war in 2003, for example. I believe the old yellowcake would have been part of a weapons program (just like Iran is working toward that goal) and since the yellowcake just went to Canada, to me, the title works. If it was of so little importance, why was it "secured?" Why was there concern that it might fall into Iranian or other terrorist hands? FYI, I don't believe Bush lied. The intelligence indicated there were WMDs. We will never know what went over the border to Syria.

War is terrible. No question about it. But you act like Saddam was some sort of Sunday School teacher. He was a horrible dictator who thought nothing of killing and torturing his own people. Only time will tell if the idea of creating a democracy in Iraq will really work. Although I am happy to see the progress and prosperity there, I have my doubts. As for going to war to protect the oil, I think that was a compelling factor. The way things are heating up between Israel and Iran, we may just get to see what life in the United States is like without a major source of middle east oil.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I am probably as conservative as you are liberal. It seems you have a lot to get off your chest. We could go on and on forever, but I don't have the energy for that. It might be easier for you to just join the bloggers on Brookfieldnow--it would require your photo and name however.

Bravo Kyle!  If the yellowcake story is "no story," why were all those precautions taken?  If we went to war for oil, then the Libs should be hollering "Drill here, drill now, save money."  Let's get off our dependence on the Middle East and be independent of their oil.

Just to answer the last question, because many of us could go on and on about this issue and all the issues surrounding it, but My 2 asked why were all those precautions taken. There are extreme precautions taken ordering and shipping less than one drop of any material considered radioactive in the US, and it is pretty much impossible to order or ship overseas. Yellow cake Uranium is very low grade material, but it is still radioactive and subject to pretty severe restrictions for shipping and moving it around, especially when crossing international borders.

But the title is misleading if the author has knowledge that this material is not the material Bush referred to when he made the mistaken reference/ lied/ cherry picked the data to feed to reporters and the public. This material was known to be present and not in some secret underground facility, it was not enroute from Niger to Iraq during the lead up to war. Bush may or may not have lied, only he knows for certain what he thought of the data he was handed, but most sources indicate after the fact that the sources he used were well known by all to be inaccurate and discredited at the time he made that declaration about Niger.  Someone should have been on top of that, or perhaps they were and just 'accidentily' omitted giving the President the entire story, focusing more on giving him what he wanted to hear.